W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: XProc Agenda 6 Jan 2011

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:46:54 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ei8perwx.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes


                                   - DRAFT -

                            XML Processing Model WG

Meeting 186, 06 Jan 2011


   See also: [3]IRC log


           Norm, Henry, Mohamed, Paul, Vojtech, Alex





     * [4]Topics

         1. [5]Accept this agenda?
         2. [6]Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
         3. [7]Next meeting: telcon, 20 Jan 2011?
         4. [8]Review of the template note
         5. [9]Review of comments on the processor profiles document
         6. [10]Definition of an XProc processor

     * [11]Summary of Action Items


  Accept this agenda?

   -> [12]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html


  Accept minutes from the previous meeting?

   -> [13]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html


  Next meeting: telcon, 20 Jan 2011?

   Per “Any Other Business” below, the 13 Jan telcon is cancelled; next
   meeting is 20 January 2011.

  Review of the template note

   -> [14]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html

   Norm points to Mohamed's comments:

   Norm: Anyone think I got the rules for parsing "{" and "}" wrong?

   No comments heard.

   Mohamed proposes renaming p:in-scope-names to p:set-in-scope-names

   Norm: I'm not moved.

   Vojtech: We also have p:value-available() to check if an option is set; so
   maybe values would be better in the name.

   Norm: Any other comments?

   Mohamed: I'm persuaded the the verb question isn't relevant here.

   Norm: I'm not sure I like values better, but I won't lie down in the road
   over the name.

   Vojtech: No, p:in-scope-names is ok with me.

   Norm: Anyone else?

   None heard.

   Norm: I propose to leave the name unchanged. Any objections?


   Norm: Now on to p:document-template; Mohamed proposes instead
   p:template-document and points out, in particular, that
   p:document-template would be another step starting "p:document", so makes
   completion harder.
   ... I'm sort of moved. I'm not thrilled with p:parameterize-document, but
   p:template-document works.

   Vojtech: What about just p:template?

   <MoZ> +1

   Henry: I have to say I like that...

   Norm: I can't think of any problem with p:template. Anyone prefer *not* to
   name it p:template?
   ... I think the proposal is to rename p:document-template to simply


   Norm: The rest of Mohamed's note observes that the error links are broken
   and we don't have any examples.

   Mohamed: The declaration of the steps aren't the same as the declarations
   in XProc; the background color is missing.

   <scribe> ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. [recorded in

   Mohamed: what about the error namespace?

   Vojtech: Yes, don't we encourage users to use our error namespace?

   Norm: That was specifically for err:XD0030, I think, not the errors

   Vojtech: Or maybe it was the xproc-step namespace?

   Norm: Yes, that rings a bell.

   Brief searching doesn't turn up the relevant prose from the spec.

   Norm: So where are we?

   Vojtech: Saying we don't allow the error namespace for custom errors is
   what I'd like, but I think that would be a breaking change.

   Henry: Yes, but if users are doing that, they're already in danger of
   walking on each other.
   ... Given that we didn't publish a policy for that little symbol space,
   people use it at their own risk.

   Norm: Yes, I'm with Henry, if you started with XC0067 for your private
   errors, you've made an interesting design choice, but the consequences are

   Vojtech: Perhaps we could say that we discourage users from using the err:
   ... And perhaps something similar for the XProc step namespace?

   Norm: I'd be ok with that.

   Norm: I think the proposal is to add a note of the form "Users are
   discouraged from using the error namespace..."


   Norm: How about we do this New Orlean's style? I'll publish a draft this
   week. If no one objects in email next week, I'll send it off to be
   published as an official WG note.

   <ht> +1


  Review of comments on the processor profiles document

   -> file://localhost/projects/w3c/WWW/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/

   -> [17]http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/

   Norm: There aren't any new comments.

   Henry: I haven't looked at it.

   Norm: I think all we need to do is close the loop with David Lee that
   we're not comfortable adding more profiles

   Henry: What about Vojtech's comment?

   Vojtech: I think it's obvious that we expect a namespace aware processor.

   Norm: I think that is what we meant, but if it's not clear...

   Vojtech: We refer to the term "namespace well-formed document", I think
   that naturally assumes a namespace aware processor.

   <ht> Yes, that's what I was looking for

   Norm: I think you're right. Namespace well-formed is absolutely
   definitive, I think.
   ... So we can close your issue without change?

   Vojtech: Yes, I think so.

   <scribe> ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent
   to not add new profiles. [recorded in

   Norm: If that works out, then I think we should begin the process of
   getting this published as a PR.

  Definition of an XProc processor


   Norm: Vojtech made a proposal that I liked.
   ... I'll draft an erratum to add that definition to the spec.
   ... Any other business?

   We've got stuff we can do in email, I propose that we *don't* meet next

   Next meeting is 20 January. Any objections?

   None heard.

   Norm: Any regrets for 20 January?

   None heard.


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Henry to close the loop with David Lee to get his assent to
   not add new profiles. [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Norm to produce a new draft. [recorded in

   [End of minutes]


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.135 ([23]CVS
    $Date: 2011/01/06 19:00:58 $


   1. http://www.w3.org/
   2. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda
   3. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-irc
   4. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#agenda
   5. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item01
   6. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item02
   7. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item03
   8. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item04
   9. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item05
  10. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#item06
  11. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-minutes.html#ActionSummary
  12. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2011/01/06-agenda.html
  13. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/12/16-minutes.html
  14. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/template-note.html
  15. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Dec/0011.html
  16. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  17. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2010/11/lc-comments/
  18. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  19. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2010Nov/0052.html
  20. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action02
  21. http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-xproc-minutes.html#action01
  22. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
  23. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 19:48:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC